ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK VS. ATTY. FELIPE G.

ZAPATOS
A.C. No. 7388 | October 19, 2016
BERSAMIN, J

FACTS:
The petitioner Atty. Rutillano B. Pasok, represented a forcible entry case
before the Municipal Trial Court of Tangub City 10th Judicial Division
presided by Judge Felipe Zapatos where the latter rendered against the
former.

In 1994 the petitioner filed another civil case for the same plaintiff for
Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Reconveyance of Ownership,
Accounting of Rents and Fruits and Attorney's Fees and Damages with
Petition for the Appointment of a Receiver, where the respondent was the
same Presiding Judge. Suspending the scheduled hearing for reason that
there is still affirmative defense raised by defendant, petitioner promptly
filled a Manifestation and Memorandum to inhibit the respondent Judge
from trying the case.

Since 1996 the case hibernated and the respondent Judge was appointed as
Presiding Judge of RTC Brach 35, Ozamis City and retired on 2001.

In 2006 newly appointed Presiding Judge Vapor of MTCC 10th Judicial

Region upon informing the parties intends to render a judgement after
submission of their Memorandum. The petitioner was shock to find out that
the respondent is now representing the defendant of the case he formerly
presided. Judge Vapor rending a judgement based on the evidences, he
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Appealing the decision to the RTC the petitioner filled a petition to expunge
from the Court Record the memorandum filled by the Defendant-appellee
on the ground that as the former is presiding judge of the MTCC, Tangub
City, he is, disqualified to appear as counsel for the defendants, this motion
was denied despite the admission of the respondent. Judge Macohon of RTC
reversed the decision of MTCC thus sustaining its jurisdiction.

Petitioner filled an administrative case to the IBP and finds that the
petitioner was guilty in violation of Canon 6.03 and recommended a one-
month suspension. The Board of Governors upheld the recommendation
despite the appeal as he needed the income to survive or die of starvation
after his retirement.

ISSUE/s:
Whether or not former Judge Felipe G. Zapatos was guilty of representing
adverse interest on a case he previously presided in violation of Canon 6.03
of Code of Professional Responsibility?

1
 ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK VS. ATTY. FELIPE G. ZAPATOS
A.C. No. 7388 | October 19, 2016
BERSAMIN, J

RULING:
Yes, the Court adopt and affirm the Resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors for violation of Rule 6.03 of Canon 6 of Rule of the Professional
Responsibility, thus and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a
period of ONE (1) MONTH

Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government

service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service.

The court elucidates that his act of presiding constituted intervention

within the meaning of the rule whose text does not mention the degree or
length of the intervention in the particular case or matter.

The court also emphasized that the restriction as applied to him lasted
beyond his tenure in relation to the matters in which he had intervened as
judge. Accordingly, the fact that he was already retired from the Bench, or
that he was already in the private practice of law when he was engaged for
the case was inconsequential.

The court empathetically stated that although we can understand his

current situation and sympathize with him, his actuations cannot be
overlooked because they contravened the express letter and spirit of Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

It would not be difficult for him, being a lawyer and a former member of the
Bench, to accept clients whom he could ethically represent in a professional
capacity. If the alternatives open to him were not adequate to his liking, he
had other recourses, like serving as a notary public under a valid
commission. His taking on of the defendants' civil cases despite his previous
direct intervention thereon while still a member of the Bench was
impermissible. He should have maintained his ethical integrity by avoiding
the engagement by the defendants.